How does this bill 15 do this? How does this bill stop this? If you are within -- even if we argue over the definition of what is defined as "an organization" or "a community group" or "a civic association," if that aggrieved or perceived aggrieved party is part of that group, they are heard and have standing as a matter of right. What you are testifying to, and what other people have testified to, is that somehow that group in that neighborhood, through this bill, will now be silenced. That is absolutely untrue. 344 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 There may be a requirement to meet a certain standard for a group or advocacy group that are from another area around the city or around the State. That may be an additional hurdle for them, but there is no additional hurdle required or being placed upon the Pennsport Civic Association, the Bridesburg Civic Association, the Somerton Civic Association for projects involving their neighborhood. That's not being diminished in any way.
Because when there becomes a question of their ability to appeal, there is less interest in dealing with them at the table. If a developer -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
You need to explain to me how -- 345 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
They don't have to show they're aggrieved if they are the community group within the affected area. The only aggrievance that needs to be shown is for people who are outside of that particular area.
The way this bill is written now, the local community group, the Pennsport group that makes it deal and then decides it doesn't want the deal and the billboard company decides to put up its billboard despite your opposition, and for whatever reason, Chairman Kelly says okay, it's going to have a harder -- 346 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I'm not saying they can't do it, but they're going to have a harder time because they have to show aggrievance because the word doesn't say "or" a civic group; it says "including" civic groups.
As a matter of right, a community or a neighborhood group or organization --
No, it doesn't say "or," at least not the one I -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Even in the new one. He's talking about the word "including." He's saying that that's being modified by "aggrieved."
But I'm saying that further on in there, the words "or neighborhood group or organization" aren't acceptable. Is that what you're saying? (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.) 347 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
The way I'm reading it, it says "severely aggrieved decision of the Board, including as a matter of right. . . " and the word "or" has been removed. Now, if you insert the word back "or," that will be a big help. (Councilmembers confer off the record.)
The place you need the "or" is up front, right after "decision of the Board." Like you have "or any taxpayer." (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
But you still have the other problem, the citywide interest problem.
Before we get to the citywide interest group, we need -- because this is what has motivated many of the people who are here today to testify, because of this alert that was put out, and Councilman has the right as an elected official to --
But it speaks the truth. (Unintelligible, parties talking over 348 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 each other.)
I'm not here in response to this. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Understand. But the alert says, "This dangerous bill would bar most citizens of Philadelphia from protecting their communities at the Zoning Board and the appeals in the courts." That is not accurate. This bill does not keep people from protecting their own neighborhoods.
I'll recognize you. Mr. Jaffe, do you want to sit at the table here or --
Okay, good. I 349 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 thought he was going to --
I wanted to get this thing in check so I could be heard.
Without this amendment, it would have -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
So your testimony now is, the amendment keeps at least the immediate community in standing, in the mix, both at the Zoning Board and in the appeal process.
-- after the word "board." So if you want to take out just the words "any taxpayer," leave the word "or" in there so that you have "or a community or neighborhood group."
Well, that's understood, and that will be taken under advisement.
Before we move -- I 350 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 just want to make sure that before we to the citywide concerns, which I believe are legitimate. However, I want to make sure that there's no misunderstanding that if this amendment, in your opinion at least and in the opinion of the City's legal advice, is that, in fact, no individual neighborhood group is being shut out of any process involving their own neighborhood. Now, we could talk about the issue of citywide and whether or not people have a right to be concerned about various development, advertising issues as relates to the City as a whole; they're legitimate arguments. But I want to make sure that people understand this is not eliminating any individual neighborhood's rights to any process to protect their neighborhood, in my opinion.
A descending voice 351 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 here.
The courts -- because in standing, they want people very close to it. And there was a case involving Friends of FDR Park that were considered not to have standing because they had no member right close to where the problem was, even though the general neighborhood was Friends of FDR Park. It was held that there was no person was aggrieved.
The name of the Philadelphia organization that (inaudible) was Sports Congress. It was headed up by Mr. Levy, Robert E. Levy, and it is responsible for Final Fours and World Series and things of that, along with the skill of the players who were actively participating in the sport.
I just have a couple technical questions still in the localized area of this, not necessarily for Mr. Krakower, although you can obviously respond. 352 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 But in this -- and I understand what you were trying to do with regard to the word "including" versus the word "or," because of the belief that the aggrieved standard would still apply even to that particular group as opposed to creating a clear distinction with the word "or." Even if that were the case, the further standard that is created is in Section (7)(c), in this same Section 14-1807, I believe, of the code, which talks about groups or organizations composed primarily of tenants and property owners who reside in the vicinity of the property which is the subject of the zoning appeal. So that will become the new standard, even under the new language even if "or" was substituted for "including."
That was one of the questions that I wrote down. What is the definition of "vicinity"? And in my particular case, this is certainly not unusual. Is "and/or" in the vicinity of Manayunk? 353 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
My response would be yes. If the people in Andorra have an interest in what's going on in Manayunk, that makes it in the vicinity. In other words, I don't believe that people just willy-nilly want to get involved in matters in which they have no interest. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Well, I appreciate your perspective even as a lawyer. What's the court going to say?
I appreciate your perspective even as a lawyer. What's the court going to say in this particular regard if the change is made? From a legal standpoint, standpoint is Andorra in the vicinity of Manayunk? Or is Haddington in the vicinity of Wynnefield? And, you know, what interest does, for instance, the 21st Ward Community Council have, which is an umbrella organization for all of the other civics? And do they have standing?
We don't know the answer 354 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 to those questions, it opens the box. Frankly, I like better the idea of just on the "or any taxpayer" language alone, because you have 45 years of not really having a problem. (Applause.)
Stanley and I have had cases against each other. I've represented developers, I've also represented civic associations at times and protestants. And before that SCRUB case, I've had cases where he was representing a protestant that lived some distance away from a project and the taxpayer argument was never made. And so I'm curious as to how many times in the past 45 years or 20 years that Stanley made the taxpayer argument, because what I think Stanley always did as a good lawyer in using the law that we had was to make the record of what the standing was for his clients, and that was how close they were or how they were affected by a 355 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 decision. And before that -- before the SCRUB case, that is the way that it was, you know, standing was established.
Maybe all the practitioners kind of understood that -- I mean, there's not much dispute about the definition of "taxpayer," right?
No, but there was definitely an understanding of what it meant, and it meant that you were an aggrieved taxpayer.
Yeah. There are communities in this city that cannot afford their own lawyer -- be it me, and I --
There are communities in this city that don't have civic groups.
Exactly, that have no 25 civic groups, no lawyers, no nothing. And groups 356 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 of people get together over a particular issue. You know, CCRA, which is the group I represent most frequently was founded in 1947 when somebody had the great idea of building a garage in the center of Rittenhouse Square. Now, today -- yeah, you laugh, Councilman Nutter. It was seriously proposed to dig up Rittenhouse Square and put a garage in place of Rittenhouse Square. And it was to fight that one issue that the CCRA was formed. And when it was successful, the group stayed together. And I have done that on numerous occasions.
I don't want to cut across your question, but I would seriously like to get some better understanding of what is the definition or interpretation of "vicinity." What does that mean?
I have no idea. I know how I would interpret it and how I would argue it 357 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 through a court. The vicinity is an expanding concept; it's not going to be a certain number of feet that's always the same. It depends on what the project is. If somebody wants to put a deck on their roof, I would think the vicinity is pretty small. If somebody wants to put a 20-story building or a large industrial plant somewhere, I would think the vicinity is very, very large. It depends on the extent to which there might be some impact. But unlike the Supreme Court, I wouldn't say that that individual has to show injury that is unique to him, that he doesn't share with anybody else, and that is substantial, direct, immediate, virtually life-threatening the way the aggrieved standing has been interpreted. That's the problem.
Other than that, it 358 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 was a good statement.
I pretty much agree that I think would be vicinity looked at in the same way you look at what is aggrieved and when you start reaching out, where you're affecting people, you become aggrieved and you become impacted by a decision.
I guess part of my problem -- I just realized something, Councilman. I think "aggrieved" in Philadelphia is different from "aggrieved" in Chester County, and I think that's what the --
Well, we wouldn't want to Balkanize the City as opposed to the rest of the State, would we? I mean, on one hand, people make an argument that it shouldn't be different standards in every neighborhood, but we're the only county in the Commonwealth that has a different standard. I mean, in some regards, that whole argument makes the case for making us 359 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 uniform with the rest of the State.
Councilman, we're the only county in the Commonwealth only that has an appointed school board. I don't think we're going down that road.
No, I think we have grounds to be different than the rest of the State. I think that Philadelphia is more different than the rest of the State than Bridesburg is from (indiscernible) or Pennsport is from Girard Village or Wynnefield is from Overbrook.
Well, if you look at some of the county information recently about development and sprawl and congestion, it would seem to me that Chester County and Delaware County have bigger problems than we have here in Philadelphia County.
Good. That doesn't make me unhappy. I don't mean that to be derogatory towards Chester County or Delaware County.
We don't want to get into Washington Township syndrome again.
I'm simply suggesting 360 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that I see the problem you're trying to solve and I'll summarize by saying, with all due respect, I think the solution is much broader than the problem was. The number of occasions of the kind of SCRUB thing where you have what you call "outside" impact on what should have been a local matter is a relatively rare aberration, and that the problems which would be created by the limitation of communities and groups and individuals to appeal creates a greater problem than what you solve. I think that's really it.
Are there any other questions of these two witnesses? (No further questions.)
I really appreciate your patience and your staying all day.
In your absence, I asked for permission for Robert Jaffe, an attorney on my staff, to testify with the attorney at that time, Miss Phillips. I would like to renew that request now. The two attorneys are there and --
I'm sorry, we have all of the -- we have all of these witnesses 361 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 waiting.
His testimony would deal with legal issues raised by the two attorneys.
Well, I think we could certainly do that after, if you don't mind waiting. I think we've had all of these people waiting.
Mr. Krakower? I have a couple of questions I wanted to ask.
Thank you. Thank you. I just want to ask you a couple of questions with respects to the zoning process. In the old days, I used to go to the Zoning Board, you know, when I was a staff member, and we kept losing, so they stopped sending me. So I haven't been there in a while and we've been quite 362 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 successful since I stopped going. You know, I gave up. (Laughter.)
A question. With respects to the Zoning Board, when individuals are called up, I just want to make -- get clarity on this. When individuals, the case comes up, you know, they answer, are there any people who have anything to say about the case, proponents, opponents. What happens as it relates to the standing of an individual who wants to participate in a particular zoning case? What happens? Are they asked to show ID or --
A person appearing before the Zoning Board can testify as to his or her opinion of whatever is before the Zoning Board. And there is no requirement of standing that's imposed. The Zoning Board will listen to just about anybody. However, the Zoning Board will take into consideration as a matter of weight where that person is. You can have -- for example, if somebody wants to put up a garage, the next door neighbor comes up and says, you know, I'm next 363 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 door and I think it's terrible and I don't want it, and somebody who's a block and a half away says, Gee, I don't have any problem with that, I think it's fine. Both parties can testify, but the next door neighbor's opinion will be given greater weight and will be taken into consideration more. So that if that person -- and if the next door neighbor says it's okay and somebody three blocks opposes, the Zoning Board may approve it on the ground that if it's okay with the next door neighbor, we're going to give that opinion more weight than the guy three blocks away.
So they establish a level of standing on the record in the zoning hearing.
They both are permitted to say whatever it is they want to say.
Okay, and this is 364 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 in the record?
So in the appellate process, in the review of the Zoning Board, what does that appellate judge look at as it relates to the standing associated with that particular case and the Zoning Board's judgment as to this person's standing versus the guy that lives around the corner or the guy that lives two blocks away? How do they deal with that?
If the winner at the Zoning Board who's not a (indiscernible), you know, the guy -- let's say the applicant gets his garage or whatever it is he wanted, okay. If he challenges standing and the court agrees that this party that lives three blocks away does not have standing, they can't participate, they're locked out.
So the court would take into account the on-the-record discussion about the individual's ability to have standing in a zoning case? I mean, is it in the record? When the Zoning Board makes its ruling, do they 365 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 actually say, These people live across the street, we think that the people two blocks away do not have as much standing or standing at all as opposed to these people?.
Ordinary not. What will happen is if there's a lawyer involved -- for example, depending on what side I'm on. If I'm representing the side that agrees with the person next door and somebody in opposition is three blocks away, I'll point that out on the record. You live three blocks away. Mr. Smith, who agrees with this project, lives next door. Or the other way around. It's okay with you but you live four blocks away, but Mr. Smith, who I represent the next door neighbor opposes it. You know, I will show that difference, and then it's on the record. But, again, you have so many cases. People go to the Zoning Board without lawyers.
But it's no public acknowledgment on the record by the Zoning Board a 366 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that the proximity determines their potential ruling.
If you have everybody with no lawyer, it never shows up, it doesn't get on the record. It only gets on the record in lawyer cases.
But when you get to court, my point is, everybody's going to have a lawyer, you're not going to be any nonlawyer cases.
I'm just trying to get a sense of -- there were earlier questions with respects to standing and the levels of standing in the appellate process, and knowing that the appellate process, they review the records that are reflected in the zoning case, and 367 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I'm wondering, you know, if they take into account any public acknowledgment by the Zoning Board that these people live close, and now you're telling me that the lawyers essentially get it in the record and not necessarily the Zoning Board.
Sometimes -- I'll give you a great example. A store wants to do something and they want to have an increase in the size of the store, and they will have presented a slip of paper with 58 names on it, all of whom support an increase in the size of the store. And if there's addresses, I'll show they're all customers who come from all over the place. The immediate neighbors are in opposition to the increase in the size of this store, and the store owner has all of his customers like the slip at Vine Street, everybody signs in.
I'll point that out, and that will have some influence on weight. And I'll hope that will persuade Zoning Board to listen to the immediate neighbors and not these people from far away. But those people from far away still get their chance to get heard. 368 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
And with this bill, they still have right to be heard.
They won't. If they have to satisfy the aggrievement standard --
Not at the Zoning Board. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
At the Appeals Court, I'm sorry. Yeah, here they will also still be heard. I'm talking about the Appeals Court.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Council. Thank you very much.
Thank you. The next witness is Lucinda Hudson. I 369 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 believe she's not present; however, we do have a copy of a letter which will be made available to the stenographer.
Madam Chair, if I could ask, that letter is attached to a series of other letters, a whole package of letters from various community groups that are in the 4th District, and if we could have all of those entered into the record as if they were read, I would greatly appreciate it.
And the record should indicate it's from the Parkside Association, Carol Park Community Council, Wynnefield Residents Association. And "Don't Take Our Civil Rights Away!!!" They're all in opposition to the bill. (Above-referenced four letters attached hereto.) 370 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Laurie Beck? Is Laurie Beck here? (No response.)
I believe Laurie Beck has a letter here in opposition. (Copy of Laurie Beck letter was not ultimately provided to stenographer and, therefore, is not attached hereto.) AUDIENCE MEMBER: She asked me to read it.
Please approach the witness table, sir. (Witness comes forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Louis J. Incognito, and I'm speaker no. 31, I think, on the list, and I'm from East Mt. Airy, Philadelphia. I'm the parent of five, the grandparent of six, with one more on the way. And I want to start by just mentioning that both West and East Mt. Airy Neighbors join with the others who oppose the removal of three 371 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 words that we've been -- that have been in contention.
West and East Mt. Airy. Laurie Beck just asked that I should --
We have a letter of opposition from Laurie Beck, which will be given to the stenographer.
Okay. Deletion of three words, "or any taxpayer," from City law would allow developers to ignore community opposition and deprive us of a simple democratic right. In the absence of those words, Bill 00029 would allow the Zoning Board to deny the right to protect our communities. While the change would invite development, it does not guarantee trade union rights, affirmative action, health care, or decent job conditions. The change also does not guarantee that the development would be welcomed 372 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 by our citizenry. Bills have been introduced into the U.S. Congress that do call for public works that would allow our cities to thrive. Without government programs and public works, building trades workers are forced to accept the abominable legislation that works against the rest of the city. Public works would provide long-term employment for construction works that would be welcomed by all who love our city. Work on school buildings, hospitals, and road repair would ensure many more jobs than would those created at the whim of profit-seeking developers. Dr. Martin Luther King wrote that justice would be served not by private-sector expansion, but by government programs and public-sector jobs that expand human services for all and would benefit society by dramatic improvement in housing, for day care, medical services, education, and culture. Dr. King wrote that only the resources of our federal government were sufficient to overcome poverty and despair, so let's fight for legislation --
Point of order, 373 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Madam President. I'm just curious as to what your testimony has to do with Bill 629.
I did not know at the time that it was not -- I thought it was bill 7 about development it.
I would hope that we could continue to do development.
Absolutely. But I might add that now that I've heard some members of Council speak, it appears that even our own communities are accepting billboards and things that they can't write home about. You can't say, Geez, my kid has a nice playing field now thanks to those billboards that advertise, I don't know, maybe cigarettes even. But you mean, you don't want to -- well, you know what I'm saying. That's not something to write home about. But a good 374 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 playing field and a good court with nets, that's something to write home about, and I know of no 4 one that would protest one single child of having those rights. So I'd close simply by saying, so let's fight for federal legislation and not resort to catering to transient developers. Those members of City Council who most sincerely recently represent our city call the billboard law currently before us "a dangerous piece of legislation," and we fought about that earlier. We call for all members of the Rules Committee to disavow themselves of this bill. This is the testimony of Louis J. Incognito, Second Vice President of East Mt. Airy Neighbors.
Excuse me. I also have testimony from the Sierra Club, and I've been asked to give this. Apparently, there's one copy for each member of City Council. If you don't mind, I would like to have that introduced into the record.
That will be 375 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 given to the stenographer, and it will be made a part of the record.
Okay, thank you. (Sierra Club written testimony attached hereto.)
Our next witness is John Strubel. (Mr. Strubel not present.)
Seth Williams. (Mr. Williams not present.) (Witness comes forward.)
Who are you speaking for? (Witness responds off-mic.)
Joseph Walker, Shawmont Avenue, in Mike Nutter's land -- part of the country.
The Shawmont area, which is located in Upper Roxborough. I am here 376 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 speaking as President of the Residents of Shawmont Valley, which is a civic association in Upper Roxborough. I'm also here representing the 21st Ward Community Council. I'm a former President of Community Council. And we're in opposition to Bill 629, both organizations. And actually, all of my good ideas are already expressed. There's plenty of redundancy in today's presentation. I would want to say something. I could give you a specific example of a case where -- there was woman here today representing the Chestnut Hill Civic Association, one of my colleagues. Now, there's a development planned for the Shawmont area called Hunter's Point, that you may have heard about. And we have opposed that for about 30 years. Councilman Kenney, you're quite right, developers have come and gone because we had 'em in court. And your point's well taken, with me at least. Now, one of our issues with that development is public health and safety. We believe there's a number of specific issues in 377 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 public health and safety. The -- one of the -- what I think is relevant for my point right now is the way the driveway, the exiting driveway, this would be located at Shawmont Avenue where Shawmont becomes Umbria Street. We think that that's going to be a dangerous intersection. Now, this lady from Chestnut Hill, she lives in Chestnut Hill, she hypothetically goes to Manayunk to dine. And isn't she at risk when she goes through this putative, dangerous intersection. And, therefore, the next time we come up before the ZBA, shouldn't she be allowed to go in there as an individual and as taxpayer to, you know, address her concerns about that? I tried to, you know, be as brief.
She absolutely has the right to go to the ZBA to express her upset -- her disagreement, her opposition to that particular zoning variance.
The difference -- this bill would not do anything like that, keeping 378 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 her from testifying.
What it does is, if she decides after the decision is made that she doesn't like that decision and would want to appeal it to a Common Pleas Court, she would have to show how to the court she was harmed by the approval of that variance by the Zoning Board.
You, on the other hand -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Your civic association would have that appeal as a matter of right.
And that's what we've been doing. We have two cases before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania right now.
That particular person may be unhappy about the decision and has a 379 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 right to go to court and express that concern.
However, it's not standing as a matter of right; she would have to show what harm would occur to her because of the approval of Hunter's Point.
Thank you for clarifying that. I'm also the Democratic committeeman for that area, 21st Ward, 33rd Division, and I've met you before at board meetings.
I'm involved with all kinds of volunteer stuff -- Town Watch and the Police District Advisory Council. And I also am another kind of volunteer: I voluntarily live in the City of Philadelphia; I don't have to. I'm a psychologist, I do work in marketing research. I could live, I could do my business out of Idaho or Georgia or Nicaragua, for that matter. It doesn't matter where I am. But I'm here because of the process, the vitality that we've seen in this room today and the individuals -- and you folks on Council 380 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 have provided the kind of environment I want to be involved in politically. I don't want to be off in the burbs somewhere, I don't want to be in Idaho either, or Nicaragua, for that matter. And I want to thank you for letting us speak and I appreciate that. On the billboard issue, finally, and I realize my time is almost up. Here's a suggestion. I don't like billboards; I think they're ugly, I think they're dangerous. I don't want to be diving on 95 and seeing some billboard that's advertising a remedy for jock itch, even if it works. It's inappropriate, I think. It's ugly. Councilman Kenney, I'm addressing you more so than the other members, and pardon me for doing that. You raised the issue of subjectivity. As a psychologist, I can appreciate that. Why don't we put it -- here's a suggestion: Why don't we put it on the ballot as a question, Should billboards be eliminated from the City of Philadelphia? And let the voters decide. And then you would have something that could you run with. 381 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Now, I don't know the exact technicalities of how to do that. I don't know whether you could do it just as a bill on Council or what. I don't think -- I mean, I'm basing it on subjectivity, and your point's well taken with me. Put it on the ballot.